Evaluation of a Multiple Goal Revision of a Physics Laboratory

Learning Objectives:A taskforce consisting of four faculty members and an instructor who regularly teach the first semester lecture and/or laboratory sections of first semester physics meet and came up with the following learning objectives.

1. Measure physical quantities using tools from simple scales to sophisticated data acquisition (LabVIEW) employing proper procedures for the given tool and keeping good records.

2. Develop experimental procedures to carry out an investigation to test a hypothesis.

3. Identify the appropriate methods (e.g. equations, diagrams) for analyzing data and carry it out correctly, including producing and fitting graphs.

4. Write technical reports that use appropriate language and are structured in typical format, such as including an abstract, introduction, experiment/procedures, data/results and conclusion.

5. Demonstrate improved conceptual under-standing of foundational physics concepts.

6. Identify, minimize and quantify uncertainty in measurements, estimate uncertainties in cal-culated results, and compare with other results.

7. Effectively function in teams to accomplish different tasks.

8. Report having a positive learning experience in the course.

Pre/post conceptual gains on FMCE assessment

Scott W. Bonham, Doug L. Harper,, Lance Pauley Physics and Astronomy,, Western Kentucky University Contact: Scott.Bonham@wku.edu

Abstract: Physics laboratories can address a variety of goals, such as learning measurement techniques, developing conceptual understanding, designing experiments, analyzing data, reporting results, and others. As our department began revision of our university physics laboratory, we formed a taskforce representing a cross-section of the department to define learning outcomes for the new curriculum. This resulted in a list of eight general learning outcomes: measurement (using both low- and high-tech tools), developing experimental procedures, analyzing data, technical writing, conceptual understanding, uncertainty and error, team work, and a positive experience. A full pilot was run in Spring 2012 with three experimental sections and two control sections. Data was collected using the Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation, a self-efficacy survey, and performance on the laboratory final. Data from the pilot shows possible gains in conceptual understanding, differences in a few skills directly related to certain laboratory activities, and improvement in technical writing ability as measured by both a writing sample and student perception.

Measure Experiment Control Historical  Pretest 14.6 11.3 13.7  Posttest 22.3 16.6 21.3  Hake gain 24% 15% 23%  Effect size 0.64 0.70 0.63  N 29 16 115  

Writi

ng

Measurement

Uncerta

inty

Proce

edures

Teamwork

Experie

nce0

1

2

3

4

5Control Experimental

Ratin

g (1

-5)

Performance on selected lab final tasks

Measure Experiment ControlAverage precision measured with Vernier calipers (log) 0.007 0.03

% completely labeled graphs(% including missing graph title)

38% (93%)

78% (81%)

Length of abstract (lines) 7.6 7.7

Log-average of error motion sensor calibration task (cm) 0.23 0.23

Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation taken first meeting of course and last or next to last meeting. Did not count toward grade. Results hint that there might be a difference, but not large enough to be sure. Not surprising, as lecture is where conceptual learning is primarily expected to be learned. Historical includes the previous two years. Some of the historical sections included approaches such as Peer Instruction.

Self efficacy survey

Elements of Revised Curriculum

•Given in class at beginning of period during the 10th week of semester.•No differences observed by gender or major. •Average number of previous science labs taken

was greater in control sections (2.4 vs 1.7). When controlled for by using linear regression, only question with significant difference was that on writing; coefficient significant with p < 0.005.

Performance on common laboratory final examTasks:• Perform a calibration of a motion sensor.• Measure the lengths of a set of rods with Vernier

calipers and determining the average and standard error.

• Graph, properly format and perform linear fit on supplied position and velocity data

• Determine the spring constant of a spring and predict the stretch with a untested weight.

• Write an abstract for a provided sample report

Measurement skills• Both computerized and non-computerized

measurements• Data acquisition uses program written using

LabVIEW.• Define and calibrate each sensor channel used.• Define derived and calculated channels (e.g.

velocity and kinetic energy).• Define statistical values to collect for different

channels.• Uses custom designed interface box.

• Learning of skills scaffolded by using configuration files that initially carried out many of steps, progressively reduced until students carry out all.

Evaluation of the Spring 2012 PilotThree sections were run using the revised curriculum, and two sections using the previous curriculum. Each section had a different instructor, all with previous experience teaching the laboratory.Experimental procedures

• Students provided general goals, guiding questions, but not step-by-step instructions.

• Pre-lab questions ensure students are familiar with basic concepts and think about design questions before coming to lab session.

• Many labs designed to have more than one way to set up experiment/collect data.

• Amount of guidance progressively reduced as semester progresses.

• Instructor and undergraduate Learning Assistant provide guidance as needed.

Technical writing• Subtractive grading rubric provided to students.• First week students use course grading rubric to

grade a good example and a poor example report.• Each week a different section of report discussed.• Students add one section to their reports each

week.

Conceptual understanding• Some pre-lab questions focus on conceptual

understanding.• Part of the force and motion labs have students

make predictions and qualitatively interpreting graphs and motion diagrams.• Position and velocity graphs walking in front of

motion sensor.• Compare velocity and acceleration graphs

speeding up/slowing down in different directions

Data analysis• Learn to use Igor Pro for plotting data and

carrying out fitting.• Amount of pre-programmed script and guidance

progressively reduced as semester progresses.• Instructor and undergraduate Learning Assistant

provide guidance as needed.

Friction apparatus in inclined and in horizontal configurations

Purpose Procedure Results All (P/P/R) Voice used0%

20%40%60%80%

100%

ExperimentalControl

Component of Lab Final Abstract

% c

ompl

ete

(con

sist

ant)

Group

Identifying unknown metals

By Johnny B. Goode Partner: Sid Vicious

August 12, 2011

Abstract The identities of several unknown metal blocks were investigated by finding their densities and comparing to known values. After measuring the widths, lengths, thicknesses and masses, it was found that the densities of the blocks clustered around two values. The average of the first three blocks was 2.66±0.08 g/cm3 and the average of the other four was 7.91±0.05 g/cm3. The first density agrees within uncertainties with several aluminum alloys, and the second with ingot iron and several types of steel. The specific alloys cannot be determined, but the first group is clearly made from some type of aluminum and the second a type of iron or steel.

Densities of blocks

Sid Vicious

Abstract We measured a bunch of different metal blocks to get their length, width, and thickness. Next we measured the masses on a scale. Then calculated the densities for them. You can do this using that the volume is length times width times thickness, and that the density is the mass of something divided by the volume. We got 2.51, 2.76, 2.72, 8.0, 7.81, 8.0, and 7.84 g/cm3.

Titles and abstracts of good and poor example reports.

Changes in Preparation for Fall 2012For students• Overly long activities revised to be more focused.• Complete, printed lab manual with extensive

reference section.• Improved scaffolding of learning software and

graphing procedures.• Team work self-evaluation exercises.

For instructors• Complete set of instructor notes.• More formal professional development for

instructors and learning assistants.• Complete Blackboard package to unpack in

individual laboratory sections.

AcknowledgementsNational Science Foundation under grants DUE-0942293 and DUE-9850632

Western Kentucky University Department of Physics and Astronomy

• Keith Andrew• Thomas Bohuski• Vladimir Dobrokhotov• Steven Gibson

• William Garcia• Jessica Simpson• Samuel White

Screen shot, air track and interface box for energy on inclined plane lab.

• Acceleration of basketball rising and falling.

• Acceleration of a hovercraft pulled with a constant force.

Qualitatively determining

acceleration due to a constant net

force on a hovercraft.

Prediction sheet for hovercraft

activity.